Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Nissan Copper Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shed No. J-20 Gidc Umbergaon Vs. Central Circle 20 Valsad, Valsad-396171 Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AABCN0105B Assessee by .. Shri Prateek Jain, AR .. Miss Anupama Singla, DR Revenue by Date of hearing .. 21-03-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 21-03-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-39, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-51/IT-33/2013-14 dated 16-01-2015. The Assessment was framed by DCIT Central Circle-20, Mumbai for the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 28-03-2013 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the first ground raised by assessee regarding ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) which reads as under: -
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in passing the appellant order without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant.”
The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order of CIT(A), who has passed ex-parte order on the basis that assessee no having details by observing as under: - “On both the said two dates letter seeking adjournment were filed stating that the various confirmations and quantitative analysis in respect of the disallowance of Nissan Copper Ltd. AY:10-11 purchases are still under preparation. It is now felt that no further purpose will be served by yet re-posting the case. It can be seen that letters seeking adjournment have been routinely filed stating that details are under preparation. It appears that the appellant is not in possession of the relevant details as required to be furnished with regard to the grounds of appeal as raised. Therefore, the case is being disposed of on the basis of the facts on record.”
4. Before us, now he learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the complete details are available and he is ready to produce the same if opportunity is given. When it was pointed out to the learned Sr. DR, she has not objected to remanding the matter back to the file of the CIT(A).
5. After hearing both the sides, we find that there are two issues i.e. disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 5,00,81,773/- and disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,12,59,265/-. We find that on both the issues the CIT(A) simply relied on the assessment order and has not heard the assessee, no doubt assessee has not cooperated with the CIT(A) it seems from the very appellate order. We direct the assessee to produce the details at the first hearing as posted by CIT(A). The assessee will cooperate in the appellate proceedings by filing necessary details, so that CIT(A) can adjudicate the issue after hearing the assessee. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21-03-2017.